![[This Just In]](/standard/image/headers/tji_header5.gif)
Bush's DWI
Two Views
by Dan Kennedy and Seth Gitell
A ridiculous little non-story
by Dan Kennedy
Let's see if I've got this straight. From the beginning of his presidential campaign, George W. Bush has essentially admitted that he used to have a drinking problem. Five days before the election, it turns out that, yep, he got picked up for drunk driving once in 1976. And this is supposed to derail his candidacy? If there are any more such revelations lurking in Bush's background, his campaign gurus would be well advised to bring them out right now. The guy may end up winning this thing by 10 points. The most instructive aspect of this episode is that it shows the media's primal instincts are far more important than their biases. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe, all of which have endorsed Al Gore, nevertheless made the right call in playing down this ridiculous little story in their Friday editions; the Times and the Globe buried it inside and the Post made it the number-three story on the front. On the other hand, the New York Post and the Boston Herald, pro-Bush tabloids both (the NY Post shamelessly so), blared the story on their front pages. D-DUBYA-I screamed the always-imaginative Post, where as the Herald led with the more prosaic DUBYA TROUBLE -- although the subhed did manage to assert the claim that the revelation ROCKS BUSH CAMPAIGN. Hey, a tabloid's gotta do what a tabloid's gotta do. More than anything, this story calls to mind the brief feeding frenzy that took place two summers ago, when, for about a week, it seemed that just about every national reporter thought the most intelligent thing he or she could do was ask Bush whether he had ever used cocaine ("Don't Quote Me," News and Features, August 27, 1999). If that was irrelevant -- and it was -- then the drunk-driving story is absurd. All it does is prove Bush is telling the truth when he says he used to drink too much. Personally, I'm a hell of a lot more worried that Bush's already-conceded drinking problem may have killed off too many of his brain cells than I am worried about an arrest that took place 24 years ago. But maybe I'm wrong. We already know that this election will come down to those boneheaded undecided voters whom Bush has been bamboozling all along, lying about his policies and his record to make it appear he's jest a down-home, good ol' moderate. If the undecideds now end up gravitating to Gore, then I suppose there will be more than a little poetic justice in that.
Keeping out the undesirables According to some instant research produced by Phoenix reader Elisabeth Riba, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are going to be faced with a serious foreign-policy problem if they win Tuesday's election: getting into Canada. It seems that the Canadian government takes drunk driving very seriously indeed. Advisories posted on the Web sites of both the US State Department and Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, make it clear that neither Bush (convicted once of drunk driving) nor Cheney (convicted twice) would, under normal circumstances, be able to cross the northern border. After all, you never know when one of them might want to chug a few smuggled-in Lone Stars and get behind the wheel.
The State Department advisory puts it this way: "Driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious offense. Penalties are heavy, and any prior conviction (no matter how long ago or how minor the infraction) is cause for exclusion from Canada. A waiver of exclusion may be obtained from a Canadian consulate in the United States, but several weeks are required. There is a processing fee for the waiver."
Then again, Bush and Cheney could always resort to the South Park solution: declare war. Blame Canada!
The State Department advisory can be found at www.travel.state.gov/tips_canada.html. The Canadian version goes into greater detail, and includes information on how those who've been convicted of drunk driving can apply for an entry permit - and thus will no doubt be required reading at the Bush White House. It can be found at www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/~detroit/eng/Immigration/Rehab.html.
-- DK
Back to frat boy roots
By Seth GitellThe image of a smirking, sniveling George W. Bush acknowledging his 1976 drunk-driving arrest was the last thing the Texas Governor's handlers wanted undecided voters to be looking at five days before the election.
But there Bush was, trying to act chastened and sorry, but snickering at the same time. Asked why the allegations came out now, Bush said, "I think that's an interesting question. Why now, four days before an election?" Why now? I don't know W., why don't you tell us? Surely you could have leaked it to one of those reporters from the New York Times or the Washington Post who could have safely -- and sleepily -- plugged the news of your arrest into the 23rd paragraph of one of their soporific profiles. The fact that Bush and press hand Karen Hughes themselves knew about the arrest and did nothing says something larger about the whole Bush effort. The entire campaign has been an attempt to win the presidency with only the flimsiest of packaging. Dig a little deeper with the Bush people, and you get nothing but buzzwords. In political terms, the story brought up all the wrong images for Bush at a time when he needs to cement his lead in the polls. Asked about his father's reaction to the arrest, Bush replied that he "wasn't too happy about it." Here we have a full-grown adult being chastised by his big-shot father for being a screw-up. While the underlying crime took place so long ago, I'm still not thrilled about the idea of a boozed-up 30-year-old getting into a car after a night on the town. The whole sordid episode just emphasizes Bush's status as a careless, spoiled sub-Gatsbyesque rich kid. As for the Portland TV reporter -- Erin Fehlau of WPXT -- hats off. I've stumbled onto big stories myself and faced the accusation that they were spoonfed to me. Look, the Portland lawyer and delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is said to have provided the incriminating documents could have leaked that info to the New York Times or, closer to home, the Boston Globe. Give her credit for the fact that she took the initiative and scooped the world. There was a time when Americans could feel elevated by the presidential candidates. After Clinton, we lost that. But Bush, in theory, was supposed to "restore honor" to the presidency. Now it looks like the only honor Bush can restore is in the form of awards from his frat house.
Dan Kennedy can be reached at dkennedy@phx.comSeth Gitell can be reached at sgitell@phx.com